Pravda today carries a remarkably
interesting letter by Pitirim Sorokin, to which the special
attention of all Communists should be drawn. In this letter,
which was originally published in Izvestia of the North
Dvina Executive Committee[1], Pitirim
Sorokin announces that he is leaving the Right
Socialist-Revolutionary Party and relinquishing his seat in the
Constituent Assembly. His motives are that he finds it difficult
to provide effective political recipes, not only for others, but
even for himself, and that therefore he “is withdrawing
completely from politics”. He writes: “The past year
of revolution has taught me one truth: politicians may make
mistakes, politics may be socially useful, but may also be
socially harmful, whereas scientific and educational work is
always useful and is always needed by the people. . . .”
The letter is signed: “Pitirim Sorokin, lecturer at
St. Petersburg University and the Psycho-Neurological Institute,
former member of the Constituent Assembly and former member of
the Socialist-Revolutionary Party”.

This letter is worth mentioning in the first place because it
is an extremely interesting “human document”. We do
not often meet such sincerity and frankness as are displayed by
Sorokin in admitting the mistakenness of his politics. In
practically the majority of cases politicians who become
convinced that the line they have been pursuing is erroneous try
to conceal their change of front, to hush it up, to
“invent” more or less extraneous motives, and so
on. A frank and honest admission of one’s political error
is in itself an important political act. Pitirim Sorokin is
wrong when he says that scientific work “is always
useful”.
For mistakes are made in this sphere too, and there are examples
also in Russian literature of the obstinate advocacy of, for
instance, reactionary philosophical views by people who are not
conscious reactionaries. On the other hand, a frank declaration
by a prominent person—i.e., a person who has occupied a
responsible political post known to the people at
large—that he is withdrawing from politics is also
politics. An honest confession of a political error may be
of great political benefit to many people if the error was
shared by whole parties which at one time enjoyed influence over
the people.

The political significance of Pitirim Sorokin’s letter is
very great precisely at the present moment. It is a
“lesson” which we should all seriously think over
and learn thoroughly.

It is a truth long known to every Marxist that in every
capitalist society the only decisive forces are the
proletariat and the bourgeoisie, while all social elements
occupying a position between these classes and coming within the
economic category of the petty bourgeoisie inevitably
vacillate between these decisive forces. But there is an
enormous gulf between academic recognition of this truth and the
ability to draw the conclusions that follow from it in the
complex conditions of practical reality.

Pitirim Sorokin is representative of the Menshevik
Socialist-Revolutionary trend, an extremely broad public and
political trend. That this is a single trend, that the
difference between the Mensheviks and the
Socialist-Revolutionaries in their attitude towards the struggle
between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat is insignificant, is
especially convincingly and strikingly borne out by the events
in the Russian revolution since February 1917. The Mensheviks
and the Socialist-Revolutionaries are varieties of
petty-bourgeois democrats—that is the economic essence and
fundamental political characteristic of the trend in
question. We know from the history of the advanced countries how
frequently this trend in its early stages assumes a
“socialist” hue.

What was it that several months ago so forcibly repelled those
of this trend from the Bolsheviks, from the proletarian
revolution, and what is it that is now inducing them to shift
from hostility to neutrality? It is quite obvious that the cause
of this shift was, firstly, the collapse of German imperialism
in connection with the revolution in Germany and other
countries, and the exposure of Anglo-French imperialism, and,
secondly, the dispelling of bourgeois democratic illusions.

Let us deal with the first cause. Patriotism is one of the most
deeply ingrained sentiments, inculcated by the existence of
separate fatherlands for hundreds and thousands of years. One of
the most pronounced, one might say exceptional, difficulties of
our proletarian revolution is that it was obliged to pass
through a phase of extreme departure from patriotism, the phase
of the Brest-Litovsk Peace. The bitterness, resentment, and
violent indignation provoked by this peace were easy to
understand and it goes without saying that we Marxists could
expect only the class-conscious vanguard of the proletariat to
appreciate the truth that we were making and were obliged to
make great national sacrifices for the sake of the supreme
interests of the world proletarian revolution. There was no
source from which ideologists who are not Marxists, and the
broad mass of the working people, who do not belong to the
proletariat trained in the long school of strikes and
revolution, could derive either a firm conviction that the
revolution was maturing, or an unreserved devotion to it. At
best, our tactics appeared to them a fantastic, fanatical, and
adventurist sacrifice of the real and most obvious interests of
hundreds of millions for the sake of an abstract, utopian, and
dubious hope of something that might occur abroad. And the petty
bourgeoisie, owing to their economic position, are more
patriotic than the bourgeoisie or the proletariat.

But it turned out as we had said.

German imperialism, which had seemed to be the only enemy,
collapsed. The German revolution, which had appeared to be a
“dream-farce” (to use Plekhanov’s expression),
became a fact. Anglo-French imperialism, which the fantasy of
the petty-bourgeois democrats had pictured as a friend of
democracy and a protector of the oppressed, turned out to be a
savage beast which imposed on the German Republic and the people
of Austria terms worse than those of Brest, a savage beast which
used armies of “free” republicans—French and
American—as gendarmes, butchers and throttlers of the
independence and freedom of small and weak nations. Anglo-French
imperialism was exposed by world history with ruthless
thoroughness and frankness. The facts of world history
demonstrated to the Russian patriots, who formerly would hear of
nothing that was not to the direct advantage (as formerly
understood) of their country, that the transformation of our
Russian revolution into a socialist revolution was not a dubious
venture but a necessity, for there was no other
alternative: Anglo-French and American imperialism will
inevitably destroy the independence and freedom of
Russia if the world socialist revolution, world Bolshevism, does
not triumph.

Facts are stubborn things, as the English say. And during
recent months we have witnessed facts that signify a most
momentous turning-point in world history. These facts are
compelling the petty-bourgeois democrats of Russia, in spite of
their hatred of Bolshevism, a hatred inculcated by the history
of our inner-Party struggle, to turn from hostility to
Bolshevism first to neutrality and then to support of
Bolshevism. The objective conditions which repelled these
democratic patriots from us most strongly have now vanished. The
objective conditions existing in the world now compel
them to turn to us. Pitirim Sorokin’s change of front is
by no means fortuitous, but rather the symptom of an inevitable
change of front on the part of a whole class, of the
whole petty-bourgeois democracy. Whoever fails to reckon with
this fact and to take advantage of it is a bad socialist, not a
Marxist.

Furthermore, faith in “democracy” in
general, as a universal panacea, and failure to understand
that this democracy is bourgeois democracy,
historically limited in its usefulness and its necessity, have
for decades and centuries been particularly characteristic of
the petty bourgeoisie of all countries. The big bourgeois is
case-hardened; he knows that under capitalism a democratic
republic, like every other form of state, is nothing but a
machine for the suppression of the proletariat. The big
bourgeois knows this from his most intimate
acquaintance with the real leaders and with the most profound
(and therefore frequently the most concealed) springs of
every bourgeois state machine. The petty bourgeois,
Owning to his economic position and his conditions of life
generally, is less able to appreciate this truth, and even
cherishes the illusion that a democratic republic implies
“pure democracy”, “a free people’s
state”, the non-class or supra-class rule of the people, a
pure manifestation of the will of the people, and so on and so
forth. The tenacity of these prejudices of the petty-bourgeois
democrat is inevitably due to the fact that he is farther
removed from the acute class struggle, the stock exchange, and
“real” politics; and it would be absolutely
un-Marxist to expect these prejudices to be eradicated very
rapidly by propaganda alone.

World history, however, is moving with such furious rapidity,
is smashing everything customary and established with a hammer
of such immense weight, by crises of such unparalleled
intensity, that the most tenacious prejudices are giving
way. The naïve belief in a Constituent Assembly and the
naïve habit of contrasting “pure democracy”
with “proletarian dictatorship” took shape naturally
and inevitably in the mind of the “democrat in
general”. But the experiences of the Constituent Assembly
supporters in Archangel, Samara, Siberia and the South could not
but destroy even the most tenacious of prejudices. The idealised
democratic republic of Wilson proved in practice to be
a form of the most rabid imperialism, of the most shameless
oppression and suppression of weak and small nations. The
average “democrat” in general, the Menshevik and the
Socialist-Revolutionary, thought: “How can we even dream
of some allegedly superior type of state, some Soviet
government? God grant us even an ordinary democratic
republic!” And, of course, in “ordinary”,
comparatively peaceful times he could have kept on cherishing
this “hope” for many a long decade.

Now, however, the course of world events and the bitter lessons
derived from the alliance of all the Russian monarchists with
Anglo-French and American imperialism are proving in
practice that a democratic republic is a
bourgeois-democratic republic, which is already out of date from
the point of view of the problems which imperialism has placed
before history. They show that there is no other
alternative: either Soviet government triumphs in every
advanced country in the world, or the most reactionary
imperialism triumphs, the most savage imperialism, which is
throttling the small and weak nations and reinstating reaction
all over the world—Anglo-American imperialism, which has
perfectly mastered the art of using the form of a democratic
republic.

One or the other.

There is no middle course. Until quite recently this view was
regarded as the blind fanaticism of the Bolsheviks.

But it turned out to be true.

If Pitirim Sorokin has relinquished his seat in the Constituent
Assembly, it is not without reason; it is a symptom of a change
of front on the part of a whole class, the petty-bourgeois
democrats. A split among them is inevitable: one section will
come over to our side, another section will remain neutral,
while a third will deliberately join forces with the monarchist
Constitutional-Democrats, who are selling Russia to
Anglo-American capital and seeking to crush the revolution with
the aid of foreign bayonets. One of the most urgent tasks of the
present day is to take into account and make use of the turn
among the Menshevik and Socialist-Revolutionary democrats from
hostility to Bolshevism first to neutrality and then to support
of Bolshevism.

Every slogan the Party addresses to the people is bound to
become petrified, become a dead letter, yet remain valid for
many even when the conditions which rendered it necessary have
changed. That is an unavoidable evil, and it is impossible to
ensure the correctness of Party policy unless we learn to combat
and overcome it. The period of our proletarian revolution in
which the differences with the Menshevik and
Socialist-Revolutionary democrats were particularly acute was a
historically necessary period. It was impossible to avoid waging
a vigorous struggle against these democrats when they swung to
the camp of our enemies and set about restoring a bourgeois
and imperialist democratic republic. Many of the slogans of
this struggle have now become frozen and petrified and
prevent us from properly assessing and taking effective
advantage of the new period, in which a change of front has
begun among these democrats, a change in our direction, not a
fortuitous change, but one rooted deep in the conditions of the
international situation.

It is not enough to encourage this change of front and amicably
greet those who are making it. A politician who knows what he is
working for must learn to bring about this change of
front among the various sections and groups of the broad mass of
petty-bourgeois democrats if he is convinced that serious and
deep-going historical reasons for such a turn exist. A
revolutionary proletarian must know whom to suppress and with
whom—and when and how—to conclude an agreement. It
would be ridiculous and foolish to refrain from employing terror
against and suppressing the landowners and capitalists and their
henchmen, who are selling Russia to the foreign imperialist
“Allies”. It would be farcical to attempt to
“convince” or generally to “psychologically
influence” them. But it would be equally foolish and
ridiculous—if not more so—to insist only on tactics
of suppression and terror in relation to the petty-bourgeois
democrats when the course of events is compelling them to turn
in our direction.

The proletariat encounters these democrats everywhere. Our task
in the rural districts is to destroy the landowner and smash the
resistance of the exploiter and the kulak profiteer. For this
purpose we can safely rely only on the
semi-proletarians, the “poor peasants”. But the
middle peasant is not our enemy. He wavered, is wavering, and
will continue to waver. The task of influencing the waverers
is not identical with the task of overthrowing the
exploiter and defeating the active enemy. The task at the
present moment is to come to an agreement with the middle
peasant—while not for a moment renouncing the struggle
against the kulak and at the same time firmly relying solely on
the poor peasant—for a turn in our direction on the part
of the middle peasants is now inevitable owing to the causes
enumerated above.

This applies also to the handicraftsman, the artisan, and the
worker whose conditions are most petty-bourgeois or whose views
are most petty-bourgeois, and to many office workers and army
officers, and, in particular, to the intellectuals generally. It
is an unquestionable fact that there often are instances in our
Party of inability to make use of this change of front among
them and that this inability can and must be overcome.

We already have the firm support of the vast majority of the
proletarians organised in the trade unions. We must know how to
win over the least proletarian and most petty bourgeois sections
of the working people who are turning towards us, to
include them in the general organisation and to subject them to
general proletarian discipline. The slogan of the moment here is
not to fight these sections, but to win them over, to be able to
influence them, to convince the waverers, to make use of those
who are neutral, and, by mass proletarian influence, to educate
those who are lagging behind or who have only very recently
begun to free themselves from “Constituent Assembly”
or “patriotic democratic” illusions.

We already have sufficiently firm support among the working
people. This was quite strikingly borne out by the Sixth
Congress of Soviets. We are not afraid of the bourgeois
intellectuals, but we shall not for a moment relax the struggle
against the deliberate saboteurs and whiteguards among them. But
the slogan of the moment is to make use of the change of
attitude towards us which is taking place among them. There
still remain plenty of the worst bourgeois specialists who have
wormed themselves into Soviet positions. To throw them out, to
replace them by specialists who yesterday were our convinced
enemies and today are only neutral is one of the most important
tasks of the present moment, the task of every active Soviet
functionary who comes into contact with the
“specialists”, of every agitator, propagandist, and
organiser.

Of course, like every other political action in a complex and
rapidly changing situation, agreement with the middle peasant,
with the worker who was a Menshevik yesterday and with the
office worker or specialist who was a saboteur yesterday, takes
skill to achieve. The whole point is not to rest content with
the skill we have acquired by previous experience, but under
all circumstances to go on, under all circumstances to
strive for something bigger, under all circumstances to
proceed from simpler to more difficult tasks. Otherwise, no
progress whatever is possible and in particular no progress is
possible in socialist construction.

The other day I was visited by representatives from a congress
of delegates of credit co-operative societies. They showed me
the congress resolution[2] protesting
against the merger of the Credit Co-operative Bank with
the People’s Bank of the Republic. I told them that I
stood for agreement with the middle peasants and highly valued
even the beginnings of a change in attitude from hostility to
neutrality towards the Bolsheviks on the part of the
co-operators, but the basis for an agreement could be created
only by their consent to the complete merger of their special
bank with the single Bank of the Republic. The congress
delegates thereupon replaced their resolution by another, which
they had the congress adopt, and in which everything hostile to
the merger was deleted; but . . . but what they
proposed was a plan for a special “credit
union” of co-operators, which in fact differed in no way
from a special bank! That was ridiculous. Only a fool, of
course, will be deceived by such verbiage. But the
“failure” of one such . . . “attempt”
will not affect our policy in the least; we have pursued and
will pursue a policy of agreement with the co-operators, the
middle peasants, at the same time suppressing every attempt to
change the policy of the Soviet government and of
Soviet socialist construction.

Vacillation on the part of the petty-bourgeois democrats is
inevitable. It was enough for the Czechs to win a few victories
for these democrats to fall into a panic, to begin to spread
panic, to hasten to the side of the “victors”, and
be ready to greet them in a servile manner. Of course, it must
not be forgotten for a moment that now, too, any partial success
of, let us say, the Anglo-American-Krasnov whiteguards would be
enough for vacillation to begin in the other direction,
increasing panic and multiplying cases of the dissemination of
panic, of treachery, and desertion to the imperialists, and so
on and so forth.

We are aware of that. We shall not forget it. The purely
proletarian basis we have won for the Soviet government, which
is supported by the semi-proletarians, will remain firm and
enduring. Our ranks will not falter, our army will not
waver—that we already know from experience. But when
profound world-historic changes bring about an inevitable turn
in our direction among the mass of non-Party, Menshevik, and
Socialist-Revolutionary democrats, we must learn and shall learn
to make use of this change of front, to encourage it, to induce
it among the various groups and sections of the population, to
do everything possible to reach agreement with them and thus
facilitate the work of socialist construction and ease the
burden of grievous economic dislocation, ignorance, and
incompetence which are delaying the victory of socialism.

Lenin

Endnotes

[1]
Further on in the article Lenin quotes Pitirim Sorokin’s
letter as published in Pravda No. 251, November 20,
1918, where it was erroneously said that the letter was
originally published in Izvestia of the North Dvina
Executive Committee. Actually the newspaper was called
Kresfyanskiye i Rabochiye Dumy (Peasants’ and
Workers’ Thoughts ); the letter appeared in issue
No. 75 dated October 29, 1918.

[2]
The resolution was adopted by the emergency congress of the
Moscow People’s Bank shareholders on November 16, 1918,
and was directed against the proposed nationalisation of the
bank.